Saw GWB on the BBC News this morning and, whilst I did not agree with his policy on Eyeraq or Afghanistan, much less TB's blind allegiance, the sentiment that you cannot lead in this world if your eye is always on the next popularity poll strikes a chord.

The question now is when is the so-called civilised world going to pay the Zimbabwean Butcher a visit? That would be the proof I need that oil is not the motivating factor in our modern involvement in conflict.

Saw GWB on the BBC News this morning and, whilst I did not agree with his policy on Eyeraq or Afghanistan, much less TB's blind allegiance, the sentiment that you cannot lead in this world if your eye is always on the next popularity poll strikes a chord.

The question now is when is the so-called civilised world going to pay the Zimbabwean Butcher a visit? That would be the proof I need that oil is not the motivating factor in our modern involvement in conflict.

I listened with interest to Bush's justification for Nato's involvement in Afghanistan fine words about bringing freedom to the Afghan people but they did not ring true to me. I see the USA's involvement as an open-ended stab into the Middle East and Asia. Many Afghans detest the taliban but they are angered by the corruption of the Kabul government and the behaviour of some Nato troops, winning the hearts and minds is in my opinion not going nearly as well for the US as it is for us.

Didn't ring true with you? Off course, the US simply wanted an excuse to become embroiled in a war in Central Asia. What self-respecting world power wouldn't. And it certainly had nothing to do with the links between the Taliban coming to dominate a failed Afghan state and providing a safe-haven for those terribly nice chaps who flew into the Twin towers.

NATO's involvement in Afganistan stems back to the commitment made, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, to go into Afghanisatn, remove the Taliban from power, and establish a rreplacement regime that could hold its own. it was never going to be easy, but its worth doing properly.

Do yourself a favour, ditch the Socialist Worker, and invest in an actual newspaper.

Didn't ring true with you? Off course, the US simply wanted an excuse to become embroiled in a war in Central Asia. What self-respecting world power wouldn't. And it certainly had nothing to do with the links between the Taliban coming to dominate a failed Afghan state and providing a safe-haven for those terribly nice chaps who flew into the Twin towers.

NATO's involvement in Afganistan stems back to the commitment made, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, to go into Afghanisatn, remove the Taliban from power, and establish a rreplacement regime that could hold its own. it was never going to be easy, but its worth doing properly.

Do yourself a favour, ditch the Socialist Worker, and invest in an actual newspaper.

Click to expand...

Apart from our excellent ground troops just who do you think is going to do the job properly?

As for my alleged reading material just what would you advocate that I peruse over my wheaties, the Dandy or Beano or could it be the Bunty and Tammy?